Disclosure Sounds So Good


Americans overwhelmingly oppose the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision and believe there is too much money in politics.     It was only a matter of time, then, till Republicans began to develop a talking point in their effort to protect big money's influence in elections.

On December 21, GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney contended "we'd be a lot wiser to say you can give what you'd like to a campaign.     They must report it immediately...." Former GOP presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty argued on on January 21 "The better position is to allow full and free speech in whatever form, but have instant disclosure."     Six days later, Fred Malek, ex-president of Marriott Corporation and of Northwest Airlines and national finance committee co-chairperson of the McCain 2008 presidential campaign, similarly stated "I would favor unlimited contributions to candidates with full disclosure."    

Noting "a certain level of message coordination," CAP's Francis Keyes finds nevertheless "the GOP’s actions betray any suggestion that they actually stand behind transparency." One wonders where these guys were last September, when every Democrat in the United States Senate voted to end, and every Republican voted to continue, the GOP filibuster of the DISCLOSE Act   

A bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to prohibit foreign influence in Federal elections, to prohibit government contractors from making expenditures with respect to such elections, and to establish additional disclosure requirements with respect to spending in such elections, and for other purposes.

Critics of the Citizens United decision had argued that the Court paved the way for foreign entities to influence elections in the U.S.A.     When Republicans killed Democratic efforts to impose cloture on the DISCLOSE Act, the GOP struck a blow in favor of foreign influence- and against disclosure of campaign contributions.

Disclosure and its offspring, transparency, are not panaceas, of course.      The $10 million contributed to Newt Gingrich's SuperPac by Sheldon Adelson and his wife is public knowledge.     Yet, most people are not aware of fierce Adelson's advocacy of far-right Mideast views and- far more ominously- fewer still know of his aggressive anti-union tactics in his casino business and alleged connection to Chinese organized crime.

Nevertheless, transparency does have its benefits.      Politico reported this morning

Oscar-nominated documentary filmmaker Josh Fox was arrested Wednesday morning after attempting to film a House Science Committee hearing on hydraulic fracturing.

Fox was led out in handcuffs by the Capitol police shortly after 10 a.m., before the hearing could be gaveled into order. The "Gasland" director was attempting to film the hearing looking into EPA's investigation of potential water contamination from natural gas drilling in Pavillion, Wyo.

I'm within my First Amendment rights, and I'm being taken out," Fox shouted as he was led away.

Fox has been charged with unlawful entry, according to Capitol police spokeswoman Sgt. Kimberly Schneider.

Fox is working on a sequel to his Oscar-nominated "Gasland."

An ABC news crew was also turned away from the hearing. The committee chairman has the discretion on whether to allow uncredentialed members of the media to film hearings, according to a democratic staffer.

The committee recessed after Rep. Brad Miller (D-N.C.) called a motion to suspend the committee rules and allow for Fox and the ABC crew to film the hearing.

It's not likely that expulsion of Fox is a First Amendment issue, though no more a constitutional lawyer than subcommittee chairman Andy Harris, I am uncertain.     But it is even less evocative of disclosure, transparency, or openness, though the fossil fuel industry was no doubt pleased.       Meanwhile, in light of their devotion to the values of free speech and disclosure, we await expressions of outrage from the likes of Pawlenty, Romney, and Malek. 

Share |

Victory For Two

Michele Bachmann has emerged victorious in the ludicrous and un-democratic Iowa straw poll as 4,823 men and women, their votes having been purchased, cast their ballot for the Minnesota congresswoman. Only in the Republican Party.

Prediction, even analysis, is dangerous, especially for someone who expected Mitt Romney to square off against Hillary Clinton in 2008. Clearly, though, there was at least one other big winner in Ames- and it wasn't the newest entrant, Rick Perry, in the GOP sweepstakes.

The Texas governor now will have to compete with Bachmann in primaries and caucuses for the anti-establishment, off-the-cliff right wing vote. If Tim Pawlenty had won the straw poll and thus emerged as Mitt Romney's main challenger, Perry could have stood alone, as he aimed at the former governors, as the representative of the extremist wing of the extremist party.

Still, Perry can find solace in directly competing with only one, rather than two, legitimate candidates. Mitt Romney, of course, is no prize: Talking Points Memo, citing an article in USA Today, reports that the campaign's leading moderate wants the federal government to subsidize companies when they "hire and train the long-term unemployed." Meanwhile, he wants to substitute "individual unemployed savings accounts" for unemployment insurance, a de facto privatization of unemployment compensation.

Nevertheless, the former Massachusetts governor is no Michele Bachmann. Following Thursday night's debate, MSNBC house Republican Joe Scarborough (video, below, from Crooks and Liars) asserted Michele Bachmann has no chance to be nominated and complained

Michele Bachmann’s first answer was, I wish the federal government had defaulted. Had defaulted! A week after Americans lost — some of them perhaps lost half of their pensions. Lost half of their 401ks. When trillions of dollars went down the drain with Americans suffering, she said that and got applause.

If anybody thinks that guys like my dad are going to be voting that way… they are out of their mind and they are too stupid not only to prognosticate, they are too stupid to run Slurpee machines in Des Moines… Michele Bachmann is a joke. She is a joke. Her answer is a joke. Her candidacy is a joke… Iowa, if you let her win, you prove your irrelevance once again.

Scarborough has not left the reservation. If he is saying this, a lot of Republican pols and operatives are saying roughly the same thing (minus references to the elder Mr. Scarborough and Slurpees). If Tim Pawlenty had won the straw poll in Iowa, he would have been a far bigger threat to Mitt Romney than is Michele Bachmann, as Scarborough understands.

So congratulations are due to Michele Bachmann and to Mitt Romney. They both had a great day in the Midwest.

Share|

Off The Charts

During the GOP presidential debate last night in Ames, Iowa, Ron Paul and Rick Santorum squared off on Iran. It's worth watching (video immediately below). These guys actually believe what they say, in a debate in which every deficit-hating candidate pledged to oppose a hypothetical deal with ten times as much in spending cuts as tax increases.

Among their other disadvantages, Paul and Santorum never have learned to fake sincerity and thus are not exalted by the mainstream media as "genuine." And they seem to have a clear idea of the issues involved. Not so, however, in the case of another Repub presidential contender, as demonstrated by the following exchange (debate transcript, here):

BACHMANN: That’s right. I was very vocal against that tax. And I fought against that tax. The problem is, when the deal was put together, Governor Pawlenty cut a deal with the special interest groups and he put in the same bill, a vote to increase the cigarette tax as well as the vote that would take away protections from the unborn.

And I made a decision, I believe in the sanctity of human life. And I believe you can get money wrong, but you can’t get life wrong. And that’s why I came down on that decision that I made.

(APPLAUSE)

YORK: Governor Pawlenty, do you have a response — 30 seconds — to that?

PAWLENTY: Yeah, what is wrong in the answer is the answer.
Congresswoman Bachmann didn’t vote for that bill because of a stripping away of pro-life protection, she voted for it and is now creating that as the excuse.

But nonetheless, she speaks of leading these efforts in Washington and Minnesota, leading and failing is not the objective. Leading and getting results is the objective. I’ve got the best record of results as any candidate in this race.

YORK: All right. Thank you. We’re going to go to Senator Santorum.

OK, yes you can.

BACHMANN: In the — this is exactly what I’m trying to illustrate. We need to have a president of the United States who stands firm on their convictions. This is what I have demonstrated for everyday that I have been in congress. I have a consistent record of standing on my convictions. I didn’t cut deals with special interests where you put the pro-life issues together with tax increase issues. That’s a fundamental. It’s a nonnegotiable.

And when we come to a nonnegotiable, we must stand. And I stand.

(APPLAUSE)

YORK: Governor we’re going to come back around.

PAWLENTY: Just very quickly.

Her answer is illogical. Her answer is illogical. If there were two bad things in the bill — a tax increase and we’re hypothetically stripping away pro-life protections, which we weren’t, then it is a double reason to vote against it. She voted for it.

BACHMANN: I need to respond to that.

YORK: OK. We have other people here.

BACHMANN: I need to respond to that, because — I need to respond to that.

YORK: I understand.

I understand. You have the next question. (addresses Senator Santorum) You have the next question, senator. I promise.

(APPLAUSE)

(UNKNOWN): Congresswoman Bachmann, 15 seconds, OK?

BACHMANN: This is what I want to say. If a person — if a member casts a vote one way, they would be increasing the cigarette tax. If they cast a vote another way, they would not be voting for the pro-life protection. It was a choice. The governor put us in that box and I chose to protect human life.

This is thoroughly incoherent. Initially, Bachmann characterizes Pawlenty's bill as one "to increase the cigarette tax as well as the vote that would take away protections from the unborn"- and so, oddly, she voted for it. By the end of the exchange, she characterizes her vote ("the governor put us in that box and I chose to protect human life"), legitimately, as one opposing abortion. But the bill never "(took) away protections from the unborn"- an anti-abortion provision was added at the behest of those "special interest groups" which Bachmann supports.

The bill was proposed to end (as it did) the shutdown of Minnesota's state government. The provision intimidating pregnant women discouraging abortion was added. Combining two, completely unrelated, issues, even during a crisis, is how Washington (and St. Paul, apparently) works, but Bachmann apparently had no problem with that.

Bachmann wasn't content to misrepresent a critical piece of legislation in Minnesota to give her an opportunity to attack her chief rival in the Iowa straw poll. Pawlenty accused her of merely an "illogical answer" about her vote in the state capital. Asked about the debt ceiling, however, she claimed

It — it was very important that we not raise the debt ceiling, because — consider what happened. The Congress gave Barack Obama a blank check for $2.4 trillion.

That is the first "blank check" in history with the amount specified. But Bachmann made it worse, responding to the next question by imagining

I think the — I think the analysts — I think we just heard from Standard & Poor’s. When they dropped — when they dropped our credit rating, what they said is, we don’t have an ability to repay our debt. That’s what the final word was from them.

But Standard and Poor's said nothing- nothing- about the nation being unable to repay its debt and there is no dispute that the U.S.A. can repay its debt. The problem clearly, is willingness, not ability. Greg Sargent notes

the news emerges that S & P has confirmed that it was precisely this opposition to raising the debt ceiling, and the cavalier attitude towards default exhibited by the likes of Bachmann, that led to our downgrade.

The question of what led S & P to downgrade our credit rating is a matter of verifiable fact. And S & P has now confirmed that one of the central rationales of her candidacy is a key reason for their downgrade. What will she say when confronted with this fact? How will she explain it away? Will anyone even ask her to try to explain it?

In a rational universe, this would be devastating to her candidacy. Of course, the world of GOP primary politics is anything but a rational universe.

Michele Bachmann's world, however, goes beyond irrationality. At some point, the mainstream media may decide that the standards applied to male candidates for national audience should be applied also to female candidates. Even in GOP primary politics, the candidacy of the Minnesota congresswoman would not be able to withstand that scrutiny, or even a portion of it.

Share|

Out Now


No, not from Iraq, Afghanistan, or Libya, which is another issue altogether.

The participants in last night's GOP presidential debate all come with their reputations: Herman Cain, the businessman; Newt Gingrich, the thrice-married policy wonk; Michelle Bachmann, strident, weak on American geography and darling of the tea party; Ron Paul, gadfly and libertarian; Tim Pawlenty, pro-life and colorless; Mitt Romney, button-down and liberal, conservative, moderate, or whatever.

If there is someone who can be characterized- or smeared- as a theocrat, it would be former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum. Or would have been Rick Santorum.

A question from a male in the audience "I'm just wondering what your definition of the separation of church and state is and how it will affect your decision-making" inspired three ludicrous responses and two quite sensible ones. Not surprisingly, each candidate who responded avoided the more important part of the question/comment- how it would "affect your decision-making." But we still heard Pawlenty attributing American liberty to God; Paul claiming the U.S. Constitution "says no theocracy"; Cain confirming that he believes a presidential adviser's religious affiliation is more important than merit; Gingrich expressing fear that an administration official might turn out to be a bomb maker.

Mitt Romney's response was reasonable, if a little vanilla. But.... Rick Santorum? Checked and confirmed. It was Rick Santorum who in part commented

I think the key to the success of this country, how we all live together, because we are a very diverse country -- Madison called it the perfect remedy -- which was to allow everybody, people of faith and no faith, to come in and make their claims in the public square, to be heard, have those arguments, and not to say because you're not a person of faith, you need to stay out, because you have strong faith convictions, your opinion is invalid. Just the opposite -- we get along because we know that we -- all of our ideas are allowed in and tolerated. That's what makes America work.

A diverse country? A candidate in the Republican nomination process endorsing diversity? That is truly wondrous, but no more than calling into "the public square" all individuals "to be heard." And even less extraordinary than Santorum welcoming "everybody, people of faith and no faith...." to express his or her opinion.

Forget the GOP (where an expression "of no faith" would instantly disqualify someone from public office) but consider that the American people at large are wary of a candidate for public office who professes little or no faith. A Pew Research Center survey taken late last month found that 61% of the electorate would be "less likely to vote" for a presidential candidate if that individual "does not believe in God." There is a reason that President Obama often ends speeches with "God bless the United States"- and it's not because the Almighty takes orders from Barack Obama or any other politician.

So Rick Santorum should drop out of the presidential race immediately. He was a very long short, anyway, and now has committed ideological heresy. There is no room in a Repub race (and, sadly, perhaps not in a Democratic race) for someone who asserts we must not "say because you're not a person of faith, you need to stay out, because you have strong faith convictions, your opinion is invalid." Rick Santorum, a staunch conservative, is wrong about almost everything and passionately so about a few things. But he was boldly, naively right about free expression in a democratic society.

Share|

Stop The Madness- Or Silliness


A stopped clock, as the tired cliche goes, is right twice a day and John King was right at least once last night during the Repub presidential debate (transcript here) he hosted in Manchester, New Hampshire. In the midst of a chat about immigration, King noted "There are an estimated maybe 20 million illegal immigrants in this country. People have different numbers."

In 2005, two Bear Stearns employees estimated the number of illegal immigrants at 18-20 million. Now, more than six years later, that number somehow has dwindled to 12 million as claimed by most observers, primarily because others do it, and 20 million might be discomfiting.

Still, it is tempting to ridicule CNN's King for asking each candidate a frivolous question "to learn a little bit more about these candidates and their personalities." Especially, that would be, given the burden of serious issues, such as the impending cataclysm if the U.S.A. does not reduce the national debt by demolishing Medicare, Medicaid, disaster relief, and almost anything that isn't the Defense Department.

But that would be too easy. So, instead, consider that one candidate gave by far the best answer, which indicates why that individual has as much chance of being the GOP nominee as, say, Markos Moulitsas.

Tim Pawlenty, asked if he preferred Coke or Pepsi, promptly gave the correct answer: Coke. Queried "Blackberry or I-Phone," Ron Paul replied simply "Blackberry." Asked "American Idol" or "Dancing With The Stars," Newt Gingrich immediately responded "American Idol."

A few of the candidates, thankfully, gave the questions as much thought and attention as they deserved: 1-2 seconds. So did Herman Cain, who when asked "Deep dish or thin crust?" replied "deep dish." Which probably is a good reason to avoid Godfather's Pizza.

But Michelle Bachmann recognized a political opportunity when she saw it. She was asked "to you, Elvis or Johnny Cash?"

That put her in a bind. Presley was the king of crossover; starting as primarily a country performer, he morphed into largely a rock performer with considerable appeal to country music fans. Johnny Cash was a country singer but generally without the hard edge that characterized (and made great) the genre of his era. They both had an appeal across the music spectrum, making difficult any effort Bachmann might have made to reach out to a subset of voters with her answer. So, being underrated as a politician, she replied, courageously, "That's really tough. That's really--- both."

When King followed up with "both," Bachmann said "yes," and a moment later added "I've Christmas with Elvis" on my iPod."

Brilliant answer. She loves Elvis, doesn't say she likes him more than Cash, and even through a little shlock religiosity in there with "Christmas with Elvis." No doubt the traditional version of the music, on her I-Pod. We do Christianity high-tech in the Bachmann household, and make sure everyone knows it.

But if Bachmann was playing to the nation's Repub voters- and she was- Romney was determined to appeal to New Hampshire voters, many of whom have fled the high taxes of Massachusetts while maintaining their sports loyalties, all the better to claim a Boston heritage when convenient. King asked "Imagine you're getting to the barbecue joint. Maybe it's here in New Hampshire, maybe it's South Carolina ordering some wings. Spicy or mild?"

Remembering his new image- the Man Who Can Be Photographed Only Without A Tie, even if inchorent with the dark suit he wears- Romney responded "oh, spicy. Absolutely," adding "And, by the way, Bruins are up 4-0....." (in the sixth game of the Stanley Cup finals.) Pandering to the audience, but then, he really, really, really, does want to win that first in the nation primary.

But the best, and dumbest, answer of the night came from Rick Santorum, probably because his question was the first inkling of this obnoxious approach. Queried "Leno or Conan," the former Pennsylvania Senator replied, clearly uncomfortably, "Probably Leno. But I don't watch either. Sorry." Himself uncomfortable- but insufficiently- John King responded "All right. That's all right. That's the answer -- the answer is the answer."

It is candor like that which has made Santorum a bad politician and has made him along with Herman Cain (never held elective office) and Newt Gingrich (yesterday's news) as likely to be the GOP presidential nominee as is Joe Biden. The proper answer to each question was "don't watch either" or "don't like either" or "don't watch either" "Randy Travis" (video below) or "Johnny Paycheck" (video way below) or "calzone" (o.k., maybe not that one).

Share|

More Pawlenty Nonsense


Speaking (transcript here) at the University of Chicago's Harris School on Tuesday, Tim Pawlenty attacked the slow growth of the economy, remarking

Let’s start with a big — positive goal. Let’s grow the economy by 5%, — instead of the anemic 2% currently envisioned.

Such a national economic growth target will set our sights on a positive future. And inspire the actions needed to reach it.

By the way — 5% growth is not some pie-in-the-sky number. We’ve done it before. And with the right policies — we can do it again.

While starting with "a positive goal," the Minnesota governor neglected to start with accuracy. As this report indicates, the average annual change in the real GDP did not approach 5% for any of the last six decades. In the 50s, it was 4.1%; in the 60s, 4.2%; in the 70s, 3.3%; in the 80s, 3.1%; in the 9s, 3.1%; and in the 00s, 2.0%.

Oddly, Pawlenty implied that such growth is realistic by noting "Between 1983 and 1987 — the Reagan recovery grew at 4.9%. Between 1996 and 1999 —- under President Bill Clinton and a Republican Congress. The economy grew at more than 4.7%."http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif Neither of these brief periods of rapid growth, however, featured a jump in GDP by 5.0%. And both of these periods were succeeded by a dramatic drop in economic growth.

Pawlenty is correct, though, when he maintains "Growing at 5% a year — rather than the current level of 1.8% — would net us millions of new jobs." So much so that, noting a "consensus estimate" of 2.5%-3.0% annual growth, Ezra Klein explains

Pawlenty’s promised 5 percent is almost double that. Alan Blinder, a former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve, ran the numbers for me. “Trend growth is three percent or so,” he wrote in an e-mail. “Five percent growth would be two percentage points higher, which should cut the unemployment rate by about one percentage point per year. So after 10 years, it will have fallen from nine percent to minus-one percent. Nice trick!”

A neat trick, indeed, although promising what he can't deliver is cost-free. Tim Pawlenty, a smart guy, apparently believes that's the path to nomination in the GOP.

Share|

Pawlenty Caught Being Almost Honest, At First


Governor Tim Pawlenty built a reputation in Minnesota of being staunchly pro-life. Perhaps it's no surprise then, that on an issue of apparently deep personal conviction, he has found it a little tricky to pivot- into dishonesty. Douglas Burns of the Daily-Times Herald of Boone, Iowa reported

Republican presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty, an Evangelical Christian who liberally sprinkled his autobiography with biblical verses and describes himself as “pro-life” on abortion, said Monday that he doesn’t think women who have abortions or doctors who perform them should be penalized criminally.

This morning, his staff clarified that position, saying Pawlenty, the former governor of Minnesota, wants to see abortion providers penalized, possibly criminally, but not mothers — should his pro-life view prevail and abortion turn from the generally legal procedure it is today to a prohibited act.

In an interview that touched on the topics of rural economic development and abortion after an event at the Pizza Ranch in Boone Memorial Day afternoon Pawlenty said he didn’t have a specific penalty in mind for abortion. But Pawlenty, a former state legislative leader and attorney with experience as a prosecutor, offered an initial take on the question.

“I don’t think we want to make it a criminal sanction but I think there should be some kind of penalty or consequence, but we don’t have a specific proposal as to what that would be,” Pawlenty told the Daily Times Herald.

Pawlenty declined to answer a follow-up question about how much, if any, time he has devoted to considering the penalty element of the abortion debate.

Eric Woolson, the veteran Iowa GOP operative who is Pawlenty’s senior adviser and communications consultant, called the Daily Times Herald after the interview to elaborate on Pawlenty’s comments Monday. “As you know, this was the last question in the press scrum and discussion got chopped off.” Woolson said. “To be clear, if Roe v. Wade is overturned, the issue of abortion returns to the states for them to decide the issue and penalties, if any. As to the governor’s views on these matters, he believes that if abortion becomes illegal, abortion providers should be subject to a penalty possibly including a criminal penalty. However, he does not believe women should be penalized.”

Added Woolson, “I apologize for creating the confusion by ending the discussion because we were behind schedule.”

Were abortion prohibited, the woman would be not a mere accessory, but the prime catalyst of the criminal act. But realizing that pro-life sentiment in the nation evaporates if criminal sanctions upon the women are suggested, Pawlenty opted for intellectual consistency and on Monday nixed the suggestion of criminal penalties for anyone. Nevertheless, by Tuesday morning, political correctness and expediency prevailed and the ex-governor decided that the provider be punished while the individual paying for (what he would consider) murder be held blameless.

And it's a good thing he did. Reporter Burns continued

Maggie DeWitte, executive director of the anti-abortion group Iowans For Life, said in a phone interview today that she similarly believes that mothers should be held harmless in any potential abortion sentencing.

“Criminal sanctions should be in place for the providers,” DeWitte said. “(Mothers) are the ones that are being deceived by the providers.”

The fact that Pawlenty didn’t arrive at that answer on first blush concerns DeWitte.

“It does give me pause, especially when you look at the potential presidential candidates we have,” DeWitte said.

Deceived? The pro-conception movement generally has argued that women are aware of the life within; and now they are deceived into having a fetus destroyed? In the right-wing fantasy, doctors face the prospect of jail for performing abortions. Nonetheless, they throw caution to the wind and actively recruit innocent, http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifnaive girls for their Mengele-like schemes. (Women would know better; but girls, as they are considered by DeWitte and others, are foolish little things, incapable of thought and easy prey for deception.)

But the otherwise impressive Robin Marty is wrong when she argues "I guess we should at least be grateful the GOP hasn't quite moved to 'jail the woman terminating, too' quite yet." Neither guys from Minnesota running for President nor Iowan activists are foolish or stupid; there is a reason they insist that a woman not be prosecuted for a contract hit. We know it's not concern for women, whose reproductive rights they would like abridged. Nor is it concern for the fetus, given their belief that the person responsible for its destruction should be given a pass. Rather, it's a central part of a wise political strategy. Once a decision is made to threaten with prosecution a woman considering an abortion, it's over for the anti-abortion rights movement.

Share|

For The Moment, Romney Standing Tall(er)


There are several reasons to criticize Mitt Romney. His reaction to the assassination of Osama bin Laden, however, is not one of them.

The remarks of potential GOP presidential candidates are interesting, if not telling. Rick Santorum, Michelle Bachmann and Mike Huckabee emphasized the evil of Islamic terrorism. Huckabee commented "Welcome to hell, bin Laden. Let us all hope that his demise will serve notice to Islamic radicals the world over....," though Huckabee welcoming someone to hell is rather curious, unless Mike figures he himself already is there. Bachmann expressed her "hope that this is the beginning of the end of Sharia-compliant terrorism," neglecting to offer endorsement or support to non-Sharia-compliant terrorism.

But enough nitpicking. Sarah Palin found time to congratulate the military, the intelligence services, the Special Ops forces, the American people, and America, but somehow not President Obama:

Americans tonight are united in celebration and gratitude. God bless all the brave men and women in our military and our intelligence services who contributed to carrying out the successful mission to bring bin Laden to justice and who laid the groundwork over the years to make this victory possible. It's a testament to the hard work and dedication of these brave Americans who relentlessly hunted down our enemy.
This is a victory for the American people, for the victims who were heartlessly murdered on September 11 and in Al Qaeda's other numerous attacks, and for all the peace-loving people of the world.

May God bless our troops and our intelligence services, and God bless America!

Newt Gingrich was more generous, praising President Bush but especially President Obama, the latter for having "continued and intensified the campaign in both Afghanistan and Pakistan." Gingrich giving credit to a prominent Democrat harkens back to his explanation on September 1, 2000 about then-Democratic presidential nominee Al Gore:

In all fairness, it’s something Gore had worked on a long time. Gore is not the Father of the Internet, but in all fairness, Gore is the person who, in the Congress, most systematically worked to make sure that we got to an Internet, and the truth is—and I worked with him starting in 1978 when I got [to Congress], we were both part of a “futures group”—the fact is, in the Clinton administration, the world we had talked about in the ’80s began to actually happen.

But the sleaze award goes to former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, who used the occasion to credit Bush:

This is terrific news for freedom and justice. In the hours after the 9/11 attacks, President Bush promised that America would bring Osama bin Laden to justice - and we did. I want to congratulate America's armed forces and President Obama for a job well done.

This was, unlike the statement of Gingrich, an effort to imply that the former President was the commander-in-chief most responsible for bringing bin Laden to justice. The praise for Obama was grudging, for his predecessor effusive (and misleading): "President Bush promised that America would bring Osama bin Laden to justice." He just forgot to add that it would occur only after he relinquished the presidency.

Donald Trump and former Utah governor Jon Huntsman generously praised the Obama. But Trump is a sideshow, entertaining though he is, and Huntsman, as an appointee (ambassador to mainland China, a post from which he now has resigned) of this president, is as likely to be the next Repub presidential nominee as I am.

That leaves us with Mitt Romney (and Herman Cain, but why bother?). The former Massachusetts governor stated

This is a great victory for lovers of freedom and justice everywhere. Congratulations to our intelligence community, our military and the president. My thoughts are with the families of Osama bin Laden's many thousands of victims, and the brave servicemen and women who have laid down their lives in pursuit of this murderous terrorist.

Yes, that's right. He commended the incumbent, Democratic president with no reference to the previous, Republican president. Hopefully, Romney will not "walk back," "clarify," or otherwise dilute his comment. Assuming he stands firm- or probably even if he doesn't- he'll need to expend much of his energy watching his back.

Share|

Bad All Around


There must be an explanation somewhere. Somewhere.

But what could be the explanation for the apparently imbecilic balanced budget amendment (text here) 47 Republican Stepfords have introduced in the U.S. Senate.

If one is to believe economist Bruce Bartlett and political scientist Jonathan Bernstein, it is probably due to ignorance. Section 1 reads

Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, unless two-thirds of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts by a roll call vote.

But in criticizing the ever-pandering presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty for refusing to specify spending cuts and merely endorsing a balanced budget amendment, Bartlett notes that

for such an amendment to be operational and not just a meaningless expression of intent then there has to be a point in the budgetary process where the federal courts can enjoin spending or force tax increases. This is obviously a very bad idea in principle, but it’s also impractical. For example, as a legal matter we would have no way of knowing that the budget was in fact unbalanced until the fiscal year had ended, but even a federal court can’t make people give back federal funds that have already been paid out for interest on the debt, Social Security and Medicare benefits, wages and salaries, payments for goods and services etc. Thus a balanced budget amendment of the sort Pawlenty proposes is effectively unenforceable.

Not only can it not be enforced, but it probably cannot be implemented. Bernstein finds

there’s nothing here (or in the rest of the resolution) to force Congress to actually take any actions. Congress doesn’t pass a law every year specifying total receipts and total outlays; at best, it passes a non-binding budget resolution, but everyone who follows budget politics knows that the numbers in the budget resolution have no fixed relationship to what Congress eventually does that year (which, in turn, has only minimal effects on actual government revenues and expenditures, most of which are not affected by what Congress does).

In other words, there is simply nothing in this amendment to force Congress to do anything about deficits.

If the amendment was law, Congress could simply continue to pass annual appropriations bills, and....well, there is no "and." What it amounts to in practical terms, as far as I can see, is a statement of principle; we might as well put in the Constitution that global warning is a hoax and evolution a communist plot, for all the good any of it would do.

Bartlett explains

The gross domestic product is not a concept defined in law and is revised constantly; from time to time, the Bureau of Economic Analysis revises the GDP data all the way back to 1929. And of course, the 18 percent figure is totally arbitrary; the proposal effectively assumes that most federal outlays consist of funds that are appropriated annually, rather than of mandatory programs such as Social Security, Medicare and interest on the debt. Even if Congress was willing to cut mandatory spending, it is practically impossible to do so quickly unless it is willing to reduce the monthly checks going to current retirees and other actions difficult to contemplate.

Section 2 of the proposal reads

Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed 18 percent of the gross domestic product of the United States for the calendar year ending before the beginning of such fiscal year, unless two-thirds of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a specific amount in excess of such 18 percent by roll call vote.

Invoking gross domestic product as a baseline is faulty, Bartlett argues in a separate blog posting, because

The gross domestic product is not a concept defined in law and is revised constantly; from time to time, the Bureau of Economic Analysis revises the GDP data all the way back to 1929. And of course, the 18 percent figure is totally arbitrary; the proposal effectively assumes that all federal outlays consist of funds that are appropriated annually, rather than consisting primarily of mandatory programs such as Social Security, Medicare and interest on the debt. Even if Congress was willing to cut mandatory spending, it is practically impossible to do so quickly unless it is willing to reduce the monthly checks going to current retirees and other actions difficult to contemplate.

An amendment which cannot be enforced or implemented and whose numbers don't add up without "actions difficult to contemplate" evidently is worthless but relatively harmlesss.

But no. The measure reflects ignorance and pandering to the ultra-far right of the far right of the party but also a sprinkling of nefariousness. Bartlett notes rests on the assumption that federal outlays "consist primarily of mandatory programs such as Social Security, Medicare and interest on the debt." While the GOP will not push to pay back a portion of the debt, it may not be so "difficult to contemplate" that it will move to "reduce the monthly checks"- or worse. On March 29, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor told NPR

I mean, just from the very notion that it said that 50 percent of beneficiaries under the Social Security program use those moneys as their sole source of income. So we've got to protect today's seniors. But for the rest of us? For - you know, listen. We're going to have to come to grips with the fact that these programs cannot exist if we want America to be what we want America to be.

The Majority Leader, second in command to a Speaker who may face a primary challenge from a tea party candidate, now is on record as supporting the abolition ("cannot exist") of Social Security and Medicare- assuming he wants "America to be what we want America to be."

The proponents of this constitutional amendment may be silly, reckless, and out to destroy the nation's elderly. Impressively ambitious.

Share|

Sound And Fury, Signifying The Republican Party

At the daily press briefing (transcript here), on Wednesday, presidential spokesman Robert Gibbs was asked about the previous day's referendum in Missouri in which 71% of the state's voters rejected the health insurance mandate.

I mean, what does it -- what does it say, though, in terms of what --

Not surpisingly, Republicans are seizing on Gibbs' succinct answer:

MR. GIBBS: Nothing, Les. (Laughter.)

Sean J. Miller of The Hill reports

John Cornyn (Texas), chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, took issue with Gibbs's comment. "This arrogance and political tone deafness from the Obama White House is simply astounding," he wrote in an e-mail solicitation for donations.

"That the White House has shown such blatant disregard for the votes cast by Missourians as 'nothing' is startling, and it should make clear just how out-of-touch the Obama Administration and Democrats are with average Americans," he added.

(In all likelihood, the "Les" refers to World Net Daily reporter Les Kinsolving, which would account for the laughter.)

The huge margin of defeat for this vital cog in health care reform can in part be attributed to the disproportionate number of Republicans voting on Tuesday, which in turn can be attributed in part to the presence of more competitive primary races on the Republican side.

Still, the dismissive response was hardly a wise political tactic, allowing the GOP to paint the Democratic Party and the administration, however disingenuously, as contemptuous of the public. Sure, as Miller notes "the result of the Missouri referendum is largely for show, since the nation's courts — not popular opinion — will decide whether the federal government can in fact impose such a mandate."

But Republicans- and some lesser percentage of political independents- like "show." Consider the Islamic mosque and community center to be located two blocks from Ground Zero. In an interview with Politico, former Minnesota governor and nearly-certain GOP candidate for president in 2012 Tim

Pawlenty left the mosque matter alone until coming out against the now-approved plan when asked about it for this story.

"I'm strongly opposed to the idea of putting a mosque anywhere near Ground Zero-I think it's inappropriate," he said. "I believe that 3,000 of our fellow innocent citizens were killed in that area, and some ways from a patriotic standpoint, it's hallowed ground, it's sacred ground, and we should respect that. We shouldn't have images or activities that degrade or disrespect that in any way."

Asked for his comment about New York Michael Bloomberg's full-throated support for the project, former House Speaker and possible contender for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination Newt Gingrich declared

See, and I just think that’s baloney. … I like Mike a lot. He’s a very good mayor. I don’t know why he’s taking this position. The idea of a 13-story building set up by a group many of whom, frankly, are very hostile to our civilization — and I’m talking now about the people who organized this, many of whom are apologists for sharia, which is a form of law that I think we cannot allow in this country, period.

Sarah Palin, a probably candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012, tweeted twice:

peace-seeking Muslims, pls understand, Ground Zero mosque is unnecessary provocation; it stabs hearts.

Peaceful New Yorkers, pls refute the Ground Zero mosque plan if you believe catastrophic pain caused @ Twin Towers site is too raw, too real.

And Rush Limbaugh, beginning a rant that went from the mosque to Robert Gibbs to immigration to the Clinton Administration, exclaimed:

Hey, got an idea, folks. Let's go to Hiroshima and Nagasaki and let's build giant monuments in the shape of nuclear bombs and call it the Manhattan Project. I mean you'd have Americans objecting to that, wouldn't you?

What do each of these comments have in common with themselves- and with the controversy the GOP is trying to gin up about the vote in Missouri? They're all for show, a display of political posturing. While a right-wing legal firm founded by Pat Robertson has filed suit to prevent New York City from tearing down the building currently standing on the site, remarks from prominent Republicans lack any suggestions for how this Threat To World Peace is to be stopped or even sidetracked. It's all sound and fury geared to rile up their base without any suggestions as to an alternative. As in the legislative process, the GOP is standing up and shouting NO! But the Party is assiduously avoiding suggesting anything which might derail the building its leaders so fear. It's an appeal to emotion- and no effort to accomplish anything, save electoral success.

Which, when stripped of the hostility, anger, and arguable racial bigotry and absence of patriotism, is really just the modern Republican strategy.

Share|

Haughty, Thy Name Is Pawlenty

The next time you hear someone suggest that Barack Obama, Democrats, or liberals, or those on the far left are "elitists," remind them of Tim Pawlenty.

Yes, the mild-mannered, relatively reasonable Republican from the eminently reasonable state of Minnesota, who Thursday on GOP TV disparaged (video below) middle class consumers, sneering "There's a joke out now that says the main value of the Cash for Clunkers program may be that we'll get a lot of cars with Obama stickers off the road."

Tim Pawlenty wants us to know that people who could afford to drive nothing better than a "clunker" are all the same. They're all Obama voters, presumably lacking the class of Repub primary voters. Pawlenty, now rivaling Glenn Beck and Repub chairman Rush Limbaugh in scorn for the American people, apparently is in training to seek the GOP presidential nomination.

Considering The Vice-Presidency

Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, who once spoke favorably about Barack Obama, is a little confused.

The Associated Press has reported that Pawlenty, long believed to be on John McCain's short list for the Vice-Presidential nod, on August 23 said Obama selected a 'mentor,' "showing a lack of experience for the nation's highest post." Pawlenty claimed

It seems that his rhetoric has been around change, there needs to be change in Washington and he has used for his political advantage this concept of the need for Washington outsiders. Then when he has one of his first big decisions, he chooses the consummate Washington insider, which I think is noteworthy.

Apparently, Timmy hasn't been paying attention. On July 27, Obama said of his upcoming decision on a running mate "I'm going to want somebody with independence, who's willing to tell me where he thinks or she thinks I'm wrong."

When Obama on August 23 announced his selection of Senator Joseph Biden, it showed a few things about the fellow from Illinois: 1) he was telling the truth on 7-27-08, which in a President would be a welcome change from the past seven years; 2) he is would be willing as President to have someone around who will tell him when he's wrong, a welcome change from the past seven years; and 3) he believes that we should have a Vice-President lacking a dangerous obsession with secrecy, a welcome change from the past seven years.

It may be difficult for a governor from a party which has given us probably the worst President of modern times, and which wants a reprise of the last eight years, to understand, but Barack Obama decided that it would be useful for not only the Democratic Party but also the country to have as first in succession to the Presidency someone qualified and ready to take on leadership.